Talk:Moses

Template:WP1.0

Interpretation

This line reflects bias: "Historically, the Exodus narrative can be traced to the 7th century BCE kingdom of Judah, where it acts as a founding myth presented by the Yahwist faction."

That is some scholar's interpretation, and should be listed as such. Articles have to be closely monitored to not reflect bias. Thus, there in contentious matters, statements should be predicated by "According to some scholars," etc. Wikipedia is not a forum for choosing sides or favored positions, but for presenting encyclopedic matter that is wholly without bias. Religious viewpoints should be presented alongside the various different (and oftentimes contradictory) scholarly ones, with each cited by the proponent of the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.75.249 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed this line - not for the reasons given above, though, but because it's a misunderstanding of what the majority of scholars really think. (The Exodus tradition and Moses can be traced to 8th century prophets in Israel, though not earlier). And unsourced. PiCo (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the Appropriateness (neutrality) of Biblical Criticism In the First Paragraph of a Biblical Figure

The recent revision entered the following text: "Prominent archaeologists and Egyptologists dispute the existence of Moses as well as the veracity of the Exodus story, citing logical inconsistencies, new archaeological evidence, historical evidence, and related origin myths in Canaanite culture.[3][4][5]"

While all entries of Biblical stories and characters may be subject to biblical criticism and archeological dogma (if I can't find it, it didn't exist), I question the appropriateness of placing this in the first paragraph.

All historical figures (e.g., entries in Wikipedia) can be called into question - yet I do not see these promeniently displayed in other entries: e.g., for example, the actual source material on Alexander the Great is not first hand, yet few doubt his existence, based on human history and achievements.

The fact that an entire people witnessed Moses and his life, which were recorded in a book that has some 6 billion copies printed (and read?) in some 2000 languages - the Bible (http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html)- seems to be reference enough, even if the authorship that book is debatable (heaven or earth).

Needless to say, while faith and historical records are not always aligned nor reconcilable,in an entry about a faith-based figure, it would seem more reasonable from an editing point of view as well as a neutral point of view, to locate a minority opinion that questions the very existence (validity?) of an entry under a separate cateogry at the end.

My proposal is to relocate this debatable sentence mentioned above under a new subsection of the Modern reception section labaled Biblical / Archeological Criticism YSchary (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of copies is completely irrelevant. That 'an entire people' witnessed Moses is highly debatable. And the lead needs to sumnmarise the article, even the bits some people may not like. See WP:LEAD. Whether it is a minority opinion or not is irrelevant, by our criteria it is a significant opinion and belongs in the lead. That's how 'neutral point of view' works. Your comparison with Alexander the Great would only be appropriate if there was a significant view among historians that he never existed. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If Moses was not a biblical character, you can bet that there would be no dispute of his existence. Portillo (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean, I hope, if he wasn't a religious character from long before his first mention in the Bible. There are better documented 'characters', mainly kings, from the distant past, China, Sumeria, etc whose existence is disputed, so you are wrong. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, what I am seeing in this section is a bunch of people pushing their POV.

The sentence as it reads states essentially that a majority of modern scholars believe Moses did not exist.

If that is the case, then you should take out the WP:WEASEL words and the article should say so.

If opinions are divided on the existence of Moses among historians, then the WP:LEAD should not give WP:UNDUE weight to the traditional school of biblical criticism (i.e. that the Bible, unlike most other historical/mythological documents from the period, is complete fabulation with no basis in actual events) over other schools of biblical criticism (e.g. that Moses was probably based on a historical figure of some sort).

The existence or non-existence of Moses, not the vercity of details of his biography, is an appropriate subject for the WP:LEAD.

Many the records we have on the existence of some ancient kings come from the Greeks, or from tablets that are themselves mythical and religious in content, not historiographic. Absent that, history would be silent on them. Yet historians take those accounts (not the details, but the idea that such persons might have existed) seriously, whereas to this day historians do not take the history of e.g. African kingdoms seriously (consistently underestimating their territorial integrity or antiquity on the grounds that we have only oral tradition to go by, e.g. in the case of discoveries of 900-year old royal bronzes in the back yard of a local African chieftain, whose family had long claimed (without support from historians) that their town had been an ancient city state. This is a serious problem in terms of disproportionate weight in the field.

It is also worth pointing out that there is a "significant view among some historians" that Jesus never existed. Should every article about such an ancient figure include such a lead-in? If so, you better get cracking on adding them. If not, then it's optional here and needs to be rewritten for clarity as to what POV the person who added it is pushing in the name of "balance". Another user could just have easily added to the WP:LEAD that "there is a significant view among some historians that Moses existed and that many of the tales about him are true." That would be WP:UNDUE for the same reason. Yclept:Berr (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your comments about the debate over the historicity of Jesus, as his existence is more or less accepted by historians, and he isn't an ancient figure in any case. The lead here actually says, in a better way, that there is a view among historians that he existed and many of the tales are true. What it does not do is use the phrase 'significant view', so why you are suggesting it does is puzzling. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You can bet that if Moses wasn’t a religious figure he would be labelled outright as “mythical” or “legendary”, like Agamemnon, Helen of Troy, King Arthur, King Lud (supposed founder of London) and many other charming figures of fable. Campolongo (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Organisation of Biblical Narrative section

At the moment this section - essentially a summary of the stories in Exodus-Numbers - is organised according to headers that have no relationship to the various books. Wouldn't it be better to organise the events according to the books they're found in - Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers?PiCo (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Masoretic Dates

Can someone put the Masoretic dates 1557-1437BC in after his name please? Just to add a bit of context. Thanks.149.254.224.238 (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Those dates are conjecture, just as the other dates in the main article and in footnote 7. It's best not to have too much clutter, but if you have a verifiable reference, you may add that to footnote 7, making sure you follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. — Glenn L (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Okay, Doug, perhaps I was a bit too bold. But the 1593 date and Insight ref should be considered even if Jerome's citation for 1592 can't be not verified; apparently both authors had similar reasons for their early date, even as Ussher. — Glenn L (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it as it is. If they used the same chronological calculations in order to arrive at this date (a year's difference is neither here nor there because of uncertainty over the year of Jesus' birth) then the Insight ref does not add anything independent. asnac (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, we could probably add a lot more if we did this. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Avigdor

Can someone who knows something about it add pertinent information to the Name section regarding his Hebrew name "Avigdor"? 71.87.23.22 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.225.205.143, 15 September 2011

The Red Sea is sometimes referred to as the "Sea of Reeds". Please include this on the page (where Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and across the Red Sea)

72.225.205.143 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)